This page documents an official Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki policy.
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.
Shortcuts:
HHW:GOOD
HHW:GOOD
On the Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki, our community wants to show off its creations. As such, quality content on our wiki can be marked as a "good article", similar to Wikipedia in this regard. This is the page where articles are submitted for review and then voted on by the community. When voting, please follow the voting guidelines.
Should an article pass its vote, it will be marked with a {{Good article}} template similar to featured articles. The list of good articles can be found here, while an archive of all past submissions can be found here.
Requirements and criteria[]
- The submission vote must pass with a supermajority of at least 60% to be considered a good article.
- All articles submitted must follow the standards listed in the Manual of Style.
- For individual storm articles, the article must be at least 5,000 bytes in size.
- For season articles, the article must be at least 10,000 bytes in size.
- The article submitted cannot already be a featured article.
- Once you submit an article, you must wait at least a week before submitting another one. This is to prevent users from submitting articles too frequently.
Submitting an article should be formatted accordingly, with the article name and hyperlink in subheading 1 and voting in subheading 2. For example:
Article name
Voting
Each vote should be individually bulleted like this:
Support — (reasoning for vote) ~~~~
Oppose — (reasoning for vote) ~~~~
Neutral — (reasoning for vote) ~~~~
There is no specific order or organization regarding voting, unlike on requests for user rights. Once someone votes, please insert your vote below theirs as an individual bullet point. When done voting, please sign your posts with ~~~~, as this is your signature and will allow us to identify you and keep things organized.
Current submissions[]
Hurricane Gabrielle (2038)[]
Voting[]
- Neutral, leaning oppose — Hey, Odelon! I think this article has a promise, but needs quite a bit of polishing and adding detail. There are grammatical and formatting errors scattered throughout, and the article in itself is not too detailed, specifically past the meteorological history segment. I want to reiterate, I think the article has a lot of promise and has potential, but needs some ironing out first. I will be voting neutral, leaning oppose on this article. - Cane (talk) 0:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose — Unfortunately, I'll have to oppose this submission for now. As mentioned earlier, the article has potential and a solid foundation but needs some more work on things such as grammar, detail and overall polish. I would recommend referring to the manual of style (linked earlier in this request form), expanding upon both the initial description as well as the preparations, impacts and aftermath sections and perhaps adding more imagery. Best of luck! - Lucarius (talk • contribs) ~ 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose — See above. Definitely a promising article but it's a "not yet" from me. —StrawberryMaster talk • contribs 13:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose — This article definitely has some good qualities, though careful scanning reveals a few grammar issues. Also, as mentioned above, there doesn't appear to be as much detail in certain parts of the article. I, unfortunately, must vote neutral, leaning oppose for this one, but I encourage you to continue trying because there's absolutely potential. -CyclonicWrath765 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Typhoon Wutip (Olong) (2022)[]
Voting[]
- Neutral, leaning support — Hey AMWLK, I think that your article is pretty good with the tables detailing the records of Wutip. However, it was not too well organized and mildly written. As mentioned earlier, the article has much potential and a solid foundation (a runner-up for a featured article in April 2022), but it is needed to be worked on with the details. I’ll be voting neutral, leaning support on your article. Good luck! - George (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose — Structurally complete but contains several organization, formatting, and coherency issues. "Not yet" from me. —StrawberryMaster talk • contribs 13:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose — Good day AMWLK! My thoughts have already been mostly summarized by what SM said. The article has promise and can be improved on, but suffers from formatting issues (specifically near the end, being frank it looks very cluttered and disorganized) as well as lack of detail (primarily in the preparations and impacts segments). I'll be voting neutral, leaning oppose on this, but I hope the article can someday become a good article. Best of luck! - Cane (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose — This was a hard judgement for me to deliver. It really is a unique article. I just find there to be some noticeable coherency issues. These coherency issues have generally been summed up by previous votes. The one issue that I haven't seen mentioned is the use of somewhat low-contrast colours in the "Preparations" section. There's definitely promise with this article, but I feel like it simply isn't quite ready yet. Good luck on future endeavours! -CyclonicWrath765 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
